We are higher than most people on Richmond, but we still think they need one A-10 tourney win to be totally safe. We think they should make it even with a first round A-10 tourney loss, but we could definitely see them getting left out under that scenario as well.

Missouri State doesn't deserve an at-large with their current resume, but you never know what the committee is going to do with the three extra at-large spots. Will they reward 1-2 conference champs (UAB, Missouri State) with at-larges instead of giving those bids to a 13 or 14-loss power conference team? We'll see. The biggest reason we don't like Missouri State right now is that the Valley is the 12th-rated conference. It's been a top-10 league the last handful of years, and if it was again this year, we think the Bears would have a better case for a bid.

Can Nebraska make it in if they just make the final, but lose there? They would have wins against KU and possibly KSU along the way if that happened. Would that be good enough, or do they basically have to win the final to get the auto-bid?

"Seeing top-seeded teams from 1-bid leagues lose in conference tournaments is disappointing. I'd rather the best teams on the season get in and make the Tournament more exciting."

those dinky conferences choose to screw their regular season champions and not give their bids to them. it's tough to feel sorry for these teams because of that. the ivy league still does it the old fashioned -- and fair -- way.

2011 the year if no cinderellas. Seriously, Fairfield Missouri State Vermont Coastal Carolina already won't even get their chances. These are the teams that were capable of upsets not Indiana st and unc Asheville or st peters give me a break

PSU needs to get to the Big Ten tournament finals to be in the real discussion. That would double our road/neutral win total for the season and prove that we can beat good teams outside of State College. Hindsight's 20/20 - imagine if PSU had actually beaten either OSU or Purdue at their place. Them's the breaks, as they say....

I agree with some of the posters on here - if I was a small conference, I would not have a conference tournament so that I'm guaranteed to have my best representative in the national spotlight.

Just to weigh in on the devil's advocate side of the Conference Tourney debate, Conferences want to make sure the hot hand makes it into the tournament. Yeah, you would like for the regular season champ to be that team, that's why they get the no. 1 seed and first round bye and whatever other gimmick no. 1 seeds get in individual conference tournaments. But at the end of the day, if you can't win two straight games against purportedly "lesser" opponents, should you really be in the tournament? Or should it be the team that actually manages to pull of two or three quality nights of basketball in a row. I'll I'm saying is, Conference Tournaments let you see teams in a tournament setting before the Big Dance. It's a bit of a different context playing with the pressure of every game meaning advancement or elimination.

Just to weigh in on the devil's advocate side of the Conference Tourney debate, Conferences want to make sure the hot hand makes it into the tournament. Yeah, you would like for the regular season champ to be that team, that's why they get the no. 1 seed and first round bye and whatever other gimmick no. 1 seeds get in individual conference tournaments. But at the end of the day, if you can't win two straight games against purportedly "lesser" opponents, should you really be in the tournament? Or should it be the team that actually manages to pull of two or three quality nights of basketball in a row. I'll I'm saying is, Conference Tournaments let you see teams in a tournament setting before the Big Dance. It's a bit of a different context playing with the pressure of every game meaning advancement or elimination.

I understand what you're saying. But most of the time, it is an anomaly for both teams. Stony Brook went 13-16 (8-8) in the regular season and now have beaten Albany and Vermont in the American East Tournament to get to the championship game. They already lost to Vermont by 6 and 23, and to Albany by 2 and 15.

It's probably healthier for the conferences, NCAA Tournament, and also puts extra emphasis on the regular season. It'd benefit the NIT too, as they have to have incredibly disappointed teams in their tournament, bringing down the level of play. The conference tournaments just seem flukey.

Yeah I think its clear that taking regular season champs is the better option for the conferences and particulalry the competition level in the tournament. Just think of some of the horrible teams we are going to have in the tournament this year instead of decent squads like Fairfield and Missouri St.

You could make an argument that conference tournaments, from the top down, exist mostly to help the "big boys" of college hoops:

- Major conference tournaments give bubble teams a "second chance" to improve their resume with another quality win or more, while also usually increasing everyone in said conference's SOS.

- Mid-major and small conference tournaments can produce an unexpected winner, that will turn out to be easy cannon fodder for a power team. If the "best team" won every conference, you'd likely see more tight games in the 3/14 and 4/13 level of games.

Of course, is the "best team" the one that had a nice season, or the one that just won 3 or 4 games in a row against the other desperate teams in their league? That's the eternal question...

Perhaps a small conference should consider a hybrid solution, sort of what the Big East had a few years ago - only the top X teams make the conference tournament. That would be cool.

Mag, you're certainly right that a lot of the conference tourneys are done for money. I also think there's a bit of "make all the games count" in there, too. When a team loses it's 4th regular season game and is eliminated from winning the reg season, there's not much there to keep playing for, without a conference tournament (or with a conf tournament that doesn't reward a bid). On top of that, the desire to make money isn't all done in greed, especially at the lower levels. Most of these teams from small conferences need to make all the money they can so that they can fund the program/conference going forward.

In any given year there are usually 2-3 really bad winners of conference tournaments, and multiple more of the middle of the conference pack teams (3rd/4th/5th place) that get in. If you figure those use up all 5 16 seeds in years past and most of the 15s, it's no shock we haven't had any 1-16 upsets, and a rare 15-2, but 3-14's are significantly more common.

I don' t see why the mid-majors and small conference have a tournament. It cheapens the regular season if the best team does not win it. I can't see how the tourneys are money makers... Gyms are small and/or half empty. It 's very rare that one of these conferences can produce multiple bids unless you are the CAA or MVC (some years but not every year).

Fairfield or Missouri State probably weren't winning NCAA games - especially Fairfield. They were a 14/15. Only played 3 big 6 conference teams and got smoked at Penn State, lost at home to a terrible St Joes team and lost at Rutgers.

Missouri State was likely a 13. One of the worst MVC seasons the past decade.

I'd much rather have the teams that do better at the end of the year get rewarded over teams that crashed and burned at the end.

Also, "1 upset" wouldn't knock a team out of the tournament. Not one team that isn't going to make the tournament only has one conference loss, or only has one loss to a team considered worse than them. Bucknell, Utah Valley, and Oakland all have one in conference loss, and they're the closest. They all have out of conference losses to several non-tournament bound teams as well. If they didn't have those and lost their conference tournaments, then they would get an at large bid anyways.

In any case, suspension and injuries make teams worse as the season goes on. Growing together and maturing makes teams better as the season goes on. The end result is that how a team plays at the end of a season is a better bellwether for how they'll perform in the tournament than games at the beginning of the season. A conference tournament helps determine the best tournament team.

God knows you wouldn't want to seed UNC and MSU based on their performances in November and December.

I can't believe everybody here is talking about the weaker teams in the low-majors as if they don't have a chance. Last time I checked, Ohio University was the 8 seed in the MAC Tournament when they ABSOLUTELY SMOKED Georgetown in the 3/14 game last year.

VCU's best OOC win is UCLA, and they have 5 losses to teams that won't be dancing. They're 4th in the 10th best conference. They have home court advantage for the conference tournament. There is no reason to discuss them for an at large.

ODU I get: average RPI of teams beaten of 130 and a 62 for teams that beat them. That's not terrible, in line with UAB and better than Colorado State/VT/Clemson/Gonzaga/etc.

GMU has a similar winning RPI average (132) to ODU but lost to teams with an average RPI of 92. It's great when you only have 6 losses but when those losses came to teams nearly outside the top 100 you're not looking so competitive.

I'm using weighted RPI data. The neutral site losses to Wofford and NC State look bad. Losing at Hofstra isn't exactly great, either.

Thoughts on this? Are a lack of losses really enough to automatically include a team in the tourney over teams with more losses but to far better teams?

Dustin good job with your bracket but I think your off with your Big East seeds. You have West Virginia as your last 6 seed they beat UCONN, won at Cincy. UCONN was 8-8 in conference and they get a 4 seed.

Even as a UC fan, Cinci isn't a four seed. They lost at home to WVU and St. Johns. Even now, I'm not confident that they'll win against Villanova in the second round of the BET. I see them as a 6 right now. A 7 if they lose to Villanova. I love my Bearcats, but their quality wins have come against 1.5 (since he was out in the 2nd half of the first game) Wright-less Georgetown teams, a depleted Xavier squad, Louisville and at bubble Marquette. I'm not sold on them being that high without at 2-win performance in the BET. They're a solid 6 or possible 5 with one win, a possible 4 with two, a top 4 if they win the whole BET.

Seeing top-seeded teams from 1-bid leagues lose in conference tournaments is disappointing. I'd rather the best teams on the season get in and make the Tournament more exciting.__________________________

...and where's the guarantee that they won't sh*t the bed in their first round game of the NCAA tourney?

Bad stuff like Fairfield, George Mason, and Mizzou State happens all the time, and if the rules were unfair, then the committee would change them, but they don't.

I think it's what makes college b-ball so damn fun to watch.

If you even have ONE letdown if you're in a smaller conference then yeah, you're gonna get nailed. When you're on the bottom of the ladder, you gotta work your a** off to get to the top.g

Good life lesson for the smaller conference teams, I feel.

Mid Majors, same thing...you KNOW that it's a one bid conference, so you better have your stuff together for the conference tourney. You're only as good as your last game...and some of these upsets keep that adage true. :)

I don't get why so many of you guys are freaking out about these smaller conference 1 seeds losing. Frankly, Missouri State is the only team that has been knocked out that even had a decent chance to win a game and needed the auto-bid. The other ones that have a decent chance to pull an upset and need the auto-bid (Charleston, Bucknell, Belmont, Oakland, Harvard, possibly Butler) are all still alive. No need to give up just yet.

How far would Penn State have to go in B10 Tourney to be considered for an at-large?

Penn State is a hated team on this blog. If they beat Indiana + Wisconsin, I honestly don't see how they don't get in, considering this bubble.

Florida State - Lock? How about Boston College?

FSU is in great shape.. unless they lose to Georgia Tech. Should be fine. Boston College nowhere near a lock. That potential Clemson/BC ACC Quarterfinal game might be a 'you're in/you're eliminated type game'.

Is George Mason 8 seed still? Its RPI is high but its best OOC win came from Harvard and Duquesne, and has bad loss against Wofford.

George Mason is anywhere from a 9 to an 11 seed. I have them tonight as a 9.

It isn't up to the committee. The conferences themselves decide how the auto-bid is determined (ex: Ivy League).

It's nice to see a team get hot and make a run to the NCAA Tournament, but IMO body of work > three/four game run. It renders a lot of the regular season worthless and allows for teams to not get up and give their best every night.

To not get significantly consideration,Buy RS Gold nevertheless tomorrow's Horizon Nfl Semifinal (#3 Cleveland Express versus. #2 Butler) is definitely an major video game. The actual loss is pretty much taken out through at-large Cheap WOW Golddispute.

Bracketology 101 has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal and on ESPN Radio affiliates across the country. The site is designed to serve as a more reliable, more accurate alternative to the Bracketology selections of other major sports websites.
Rather than predict teams based on the season ending today, or make wild predictions of the future, Bracketology 101 uses a unique "projection-prediction" method of selecting teams, giving fans a much more realistic idea of where their favorite teams stand in the eyes of the selection committee.
While other bracketologists favor conferences or teams or rely entirely on RPI rankings in making their picks, we factor in a team's resume as a whole - big wins, bad losses, in and out-of-conference wins, upcoming schedules, conference tournament sites, and each team's overall strengths and weaknesses compared to other teams on the bubble. Our "Field of 68" is updated every Monday throughout the season, with daily updates coming during Championship Week.

Join The B101 Team!

Do you want to advertise on Bracketology 101 during March Madness? Do you want to sponsor one of our upcoming daily brackets? E-mail us at bracketologyblog@yahoo.com for ad rates and details.

Follow B101 On Twitter

Bracketology 101 is now on Twitter! To follow B101 on Twitter, just click on the Twitter logo above.

How B101 Stacks Up

The numbers speak for themselves: Over the last five years, Bracketology 101 is the most accurate bracketology site on the Internet. We produced the best bracket in 2006, the second best in 2007 and 2008, and the fifth best in 2009. We are the only bracketologists to produce a Top 5 bracket four of the last five years. No other bracketologist has placed in the Top 5 more than twice. For a complete breakdown of our bracket stats from the last four years, click on the “We’re #1!” logo above.

The 40-60 Club

On top of correctly predicting 64 of the 65 tournament teams in 2008, Bracketology 101 also became the first bracketology site to ever seed 40 teams exactly and 60 teams within one seed line of their actual seed. Through 2010, we are the only bracketology site to earn this distinction.